Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:57pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

SPUZZ In my original post,I advanced a very modest proposal that would NOT restrict or limit the rights of ADULTS. AS I said,later, if supermarts and alcohol companies can do something , then why not the Internet Archive?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 1, 2004 6:37pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

not particularly pointed AT anyone:
The entire internet is filled with smut, and you are offended by this ?

If you are letting children access the internet unsupervised, that's plain irresponsible.

What if your unsupervised child decided to type in one of these search terms or addresses?
pretty girl
peepee
poop
pie
whitehouse.com
password
thumb
teen
wet

etc.. instead of archive.org?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 7:10pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

The Internet Archive should TRY to be a SAFE site for CHILDREN and ofcourse that is NOT possible.. BUT at least it can make access to smut more difficult If my simple idea was adopted , the brats would have to try a little harder.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 11:41pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Actually, the easiest way to make something desirable is to make it forbidden. Put something under lock and key, and children will say, "Hmm, that must be pretty interesting stuff..." and they'll quickly teach themselves to pick the lock.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 5:07am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

you choose NOT to answer my original question that the Internet Archive is doing nothing and officially is saying nothing and I asked why. Plenty of apologists have said that there are plenty of smut suppliers elswhere on the net, BUT surely the Archive should aim a little higher??? revision ..spelling

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 12:07:53

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:09pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

you choose NOT to answer my original question that the Internet Archive is doing nothing and officially is saying nothing and I asked why.

Obviously, I cannot answer anything on behalf of archive.org.

I would venture the guess that they, like me, consider this to be very mild vintage erotica, not pornography, and they are not terribly concerned with its effects on children.

Plenty of apologists have said that there are plenty of smut suppliers elswhere on the net, BUT surely the Archive should aim a little higher???

Personally, I like the fact that the archive supplies materials that are both lofty and low-brow, without censorship or restrictions. I even extend my approval of that policy to material which I personally find offensive.

I believe that I have, to the best of my abilities, answered your questions, but again, I have no position of authority within archive.org -- I am just a user of the service, like you.

You should direct further questions on this matter to archive.org.

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:09:22

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:10am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

There's a Maybelline commercial on my tv set right now that's far 'smuttier' than this film. I'm not an 'apologist' or an admin, but really, I think you will have to point me at something "a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind would consider to be obscene " - a rough paraphraseof the general format for obscenity laws - before I'm going to be able to take this complaint seriously.
There are far more revealing costumes on any public beach in Australia or the US than in this film...
There is far more suggestive behaviour on many children's cartoons...

Perhaps you might view this film again, and point out what part of this you find obscene?

(smut is not thoroughly defined, a dirty spot on a windshield fits the definition of smut, however there are well-settled definitions of obscenity in law... if you are going to try to remove something from the pool of All Universal Knowledge, you would do well to exercise some higher degree of precision than "this is smut" and "delete the smut"

I'm not someone that is lax on the subject of children being exposed to things they oughtn't see, butthis film to me is a good example of exploitation..

I might ask a child who is watching it what they think the elderly lady who was once this film's young star might feel if she knew that people were looking at her acting so ridiculously, half a century later.

I might discuss with a child how little money the model must have been paid, and how much money the makers of the film made...

I might ask if they think the girl in the film would have been proud of the film, or would she feel embarrassed if her mommy and daddy saw the film.

I might discuss the fact that we all make choices,and then must live with what comes of those choices.

I think I could make a much better case for this being an educational film than for it being obscene.

Of course, if you think it's obscene you shouldn't watch it. Did you think you were downloading a sesame street episode? If so, I hope you can get over the harm that seeing the film has done to you. I didn't think it was obscene and I deleted it. You can too.

This post was modified by glenn on 2004-08-02 16:10:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:28am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

YOu are another one speed reads posts and thinks this my chance TO make a MALICIOUS ATTACK> As I explained to the malice driven trafalgar, my only comments on THAT film were..boring ,..cheaply made..stupid...These are also my opinions of persons who waste my time with their malicious attacks....Grow up boy

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 2:48pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

Jack,

There was nothing even remotely malicious in that post. Or this one. People are not putting words in your mouth, and, as Spuzz says elsewhere (and I agree) you may be driving new participants away with this kind of antagonistic approach.

A difference of opinion is not a personal attack.

I don't want to prevent the free expression of your opinions, any more than I want to censor these films.

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 21:48:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:01am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

see my reply to SPUZZ under his heading

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:32am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

And besides, based on Glenn's much contributions to HELPING people on other parts of the archive (mainly on etree,) I totally can see he's harmless.and a really nice guy to boot!

Welcome to the forum Glenn, all the rest of us here don't bite :)

This post was modified by Spuzz on 2004-08-02 17:32:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:42am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

What I say on the internet is for everyone to see. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I haven't any malice in me, and I think I'm pretty careful not to hurt feelings or to state my opinion's as fact.

The mere factthatI have replied toone of your posts, if I did, should not make you feel like my comments arepointed atyou, whoeveryou are..(I didn't even bother to see who it was that lashed out at me, as it was obviously someone who misunderstood me or just needs to lash out at someone.

shrug

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that I was attacking them, I just was expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of hosting that particular file.

I think it's obscene to turn on the tv and see a picture of a person's leg with no person attached to it, laying in the dirt.

I don't think a video of a girl in a bra qualifies as obscenity in this community. Meaning a fairly academic and mature level archive attempting to become the modern equivalent of the Library at Alexandria.

...as for 'growing up', I have grown up about as far as I ever will, and in fact seem to be growing back down now. And out around the middle as well.

And I'd like to point out that I don't hide behind a pseudonym, glenn is in fact my full legal name. I think one should be willing to own up to what you say on the net, and think before posting to an archive that will in all likelihood last longer than all of us.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:28am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Why did you tell me"You might view this film again and point out what partof this film you might find obscenity"(your actual words) .As I had NEVER expressed moral judgment on this film, I had no cause but to object.. (TRIVIA Seeing girls in bras does NOT disturb me)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:08pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

sorry,that was a misunderstanding, on someone's part, I did say substantilly that,but it was directed at that other guy who did say it.

Maybe I 'replied'by clicking a link at the wrong level of the hierarchy, or maybe you did,or whatever...it doesn't really matter to me, does it matter to you? We could maybe sort it out if it seems important.
I'm more than willing to go with the 'glenn is an ignorant newbie' theory,and move on to something fun or go import the 3 string cheese incident shows I just uploaded.

Hey,have you seen the movie Pipe Dream?. If you have,what did you think of it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:27pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn now OK thanks

Partly my faulty. I saw the Siggraph movie and still find it fascinating . I am leaving the feature oview Forum. There is too much hassle and waste of time. I have read many of your posts in other forums and have found them intelligent and informative. (at least my time in this forum has polished my debating skills so not entirely wasted

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Debating Skills

...at least my time in this forum has polished my debating skills so not entirely wasted...

ROTFL!



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:46pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn now OK thanks

No worries. I'll see you around.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:51am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

SPUZZ ..just quoting a few of GLEN,s words "You might view this film again and point out what part of this film you might find obscentity" This Glen with MALICE and it is a LIE to suggest that I found obscenity in that film . I only said that it was boring cheap and stupid and made no moral judgement revision spelling

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 18:51:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 3:20pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Okay, you never said that the film is obscene.

But if you don't think it's obscene, why do you want to prevent children from accessing it?

If you also believe, as you said in earlier posts, that a 9-year-old would find it boring, then why are you concerned with setting up a system to keep him from watching it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:19pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

SPUZZ ..just quoting a few of GLEN,s words "You might view this film again and point out what part of this film you might find obscentity" This Glen with MALICE and it is a LIE to suggest that I found obscenity in that film . I only said that it was boring cheap and stupid and made no moral judgement revision spelling

Cashel, please refer back to the title if your post, which labels the film "mind-less smut".
Arguing with you is so easy it's almost unfair.

And Glenn, please ignore the resident troll. Your posts have been interesting and intelligent, and we could certainly use more of that (as you can see)...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

trafalgar .. your reply is incomprehinsable and your insult is typical of your abiding dislike of me. Icertainly dislike your opinions and have openly stated this on many occassions revision )spelling but have left some to amuse

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:42:00

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:49:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 3, 2004 11:40am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Sorry, my "if" should have read "of".
Anyway, the point has already been made: Jack called the film smut. Some people disagree. No big deal.
And really I swear, Jack, I bear you no malice. Sometimes I don't think you're for real...but malice? No.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:59pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Contradictions

Cashel,

Trafalgar's post was not incoherent, it was quite succinct and logical.

You called the film smut in your header of your original post. Do you consider smut to be obscene? If not, what is your definition of smut? The OED says smut is "Indecent or obscene language," and dictionary.com says that it is "Obscenity in speech or writing; Pornography." Smut is obscenity, and you called the film smut. Therefore, based on the definition, you called the film obscene.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:42am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

Jack,

Why do you call people names who try to make points? Malice! Malice! Malice! Instead of insulting people, just defend your positions, and well, learn.

I haven't seen glenn post on the forum before, and attempting to drive him away with your snide comments to 'grow up' isn't really inviting conversation. It's almost driving people away (which may explain why only a handful of people bother to post on here anymore.. It's almost you vs. everyone else) IMHO

Spuzz